DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarrete et al. (“Thermal energy storage of molten salt-based nanofluid containing nano-encapsulated metal alloy phase change materials”, 2019) (Navarrete) in view of Shuja et al. (“Melting enhancement of a phase change material with presence of a metallic mesh”, 2015) (Shuja), Lee et al. (US 2019/0153585 A1) (Lee), Strauss (US 7,718,246 B2) (Strauss), and Cáceres et al. (“Encapsulated Nitrates Phase Change Material Selection for Use as Thermal Storage and Heat Transfer Materials at High Temperature in Concentrated Solar Power Plants”, 2017) (Cáceres).
Regarding claim 1, Navarrete teaches a nanofluid composed of a mixture of molten nitrates as the base fluid (solar salt) and nePCM consisting of Al-Cu alloy nuclei encapsulated by the metal oxide layer that is naturally formed when the nanoparticles are exposed to oxygen (Navarrete, p. 5, Paragraph 4). Navarrete further teaches the solar salt is used as a thermal energy storage material which is also known as a phase change material and is used for latent heat storage (Navarrete, p. 4, Paragraphs 2-4). Additionally, Navarrete teaches a nanofluid is a stable suspension of solid particles with nanometrical size used as thermal energy storage material whose thermal properties have been enhanced (Navarrete, p. 4, Paragraph 4), wherein the solid particles of the suspension of Navarrete corresponds to the latent heat storage composite (i.e., a latent heat storage composite, comprising: a network of thermally conductive metal oxide structures; and a phase change material for applying the metal oxide structures; wherein the phase change material comprises nitrate-based salt compound phase change materials).
However, Navarrete does not explicitly teach:
a flexible and foldable metal mesh;
a network of thermally conductive metal oxide structures formed on the metal mesh;
wherein the metal oxide structures are porous copper oxide nanowire structures applied to the metal mesh;
wherein the porous copper oxide nanowire structures are formed in a spiky configuration on the flexible and foldable metal mesh;
wherein the metal mesh is folded to have a shape created by combining one or more selected from the group consisting of a wave shape and a zigzag shape; and
wherein the phase change material comprises lithium nitrate (LiNO3) compound phase change materials.
With respect to the differences (a) and (b), Shuja teaches phase change material in the presence of a metallic mesh (Shuja, Abstract). Shuja teaches the metallic mesh may be shaped into different geometries (Shuja, Abstract) (i.e., flexible foldable metal mesh).
As Shuja expressly teaches, the presence of a metallic mesh enhances the melting of the phase change material by improving the heat conduction in the phase change material while shortening the thermal storage duration (Shuja, Title; p. 163, Col. 2).
Shuja is analogous art as it is drawn to phase change material and thermal storage (Shuja, p. 163 – Introduction).
In light of the motivation of incorporating a metal mesh in phase change material as disclosed by Shuja, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the thermal storage materials of Navarrete by incorporating a metal mesh into the phase change material in order to enhance the melting of the phase change material, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, as the metal oxide coating of the phase change material in Navarrete would be in contact with the metal mesh incorporated by Shuja, the metal oxide structures would form on the metal mesh and the phase change material would be applying the metal oxides to the metal mesh.
With respect to the differences (c) and (d), Lee teaches a metal oxide porous thin film used for a gas sensor, a biosensor, a battery-capacitor, a fuel cell, a solar cell, a chemical catalyst, an antibacterial filter, etc. (Lee, Abstract), wherein the pore structure consists of three-dimensionally connected nanowire networks (Lee, [0013]), and wherein the metal oxide nanowires may be copper (Lee, [0034]). Lee further depicts these porous nanowire networks in Figure 7, wherein the nanowire networks have many points on the surface, and are therefore considered “spiky”.
As Lee expressly teaches, the pore structure of the present invention can provide more open pores than pores formed with faces and can thus increase the reactivity of solar cells and catalysts (Lee, [0013]).
Lee is analogous art as it is drawn to aluminum oxide and copper oxide nanowire networks used in solar cells and catalysts (Lee, [0013]).
In light of the motivation of having the copper oxide nanowires as disclosed by Lee, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the copper oxide structures of Navarrete by forming them into porous nanowires in order to increase the reactivity of the material, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, given that Navarrete in view of Lee discloses the nanowire structure that overlaps the presently claimed nanowire structure, including copper oxide, it therefore would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the copper oxide, which is both disclosed by Naverette in view of Lee and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (e), Strauss teaches a honeycomb structure that may be made from any metal such as aluminum or stainless steel (Straus, Col. 9, lines 40-42), which can be in the form of a mesh (Strauss, Col. 10, lines 7-9), and wherein the structure can also include a phase change material held within at least one of the plurality of contiguous hollow cells (Strauss, Col. 4, lines 12-14). Further, Strauss depicts the structure having a wave shape in Figures 44 and 45.
As Strauss expressly teaches, the advantages of this structure are high surface area to volume ratio together with high effective thermal conductivity (Strauss, Col. 2, lines 65-67), as well as absorbing impact more smoothly, wherein the relationship between the strength and smoothness of the honeycomb can be manipulated into many different combinations through using different configurations (Strauss, Col. 3, lines 4-8).
Strauss is analogous art as it is drawn to a metal mesh structure containing a phase change material (Strauss, Col. 9, lines 40-42; Col. 4, lines 12-14).
In light of the motivation of using a metal mesh honeycomb structure shaped like a wave as disclosed by Strauss, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal mesh of Navarrete in view of Shuja by using the honeycomb metal mesh of Strauss in order to have a high surface area to volume ratio with high effective thermal conductivity and absorb impact more smoothly, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
With respect to the difference (f), Cáceres teaches nitrate phase change materials for use as thermal storage and heat transfer materials (Cáceres, Title; Abstract), wherein KNO3 and NaNO3 is used with LiNO3 (Cáceres, p. 5, Paragraph 3).
As Cáceres expressly teaches LiNO3 decreased the melting point and increased latent heat (Cáceres, p. 5, Paragraph 3).
Cáceres is analogous art as it is drawn to nitrates as phase change materials (Cáceres, Abstract).
In light of the motivation of including LiNO3 with KNO3 and NaNO3 as disclosed by Cáceres, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the phase change material mixture of Navarrete by including LiNO3 in order to decrease the melting point and increase latent heat and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, as Navarrete in view of Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres teach the latent heat storage composite that is substantially identical to the claimed latent heat storage composite, a direction of heat transfer would inherently be controlled according to the shape of the folded metal mesh; and the spiky configuration of the porous copper oxide nanowires would inherently provide a strong physical interaction with the lithium nitrate and the peel adhesion force of the porous copper oxide nanowires to the lithium nitrate layer would inherently be 0.8-2.1 N.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 2, Navarrete in view of Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres, teaches the latent heat storage composite according to claim 1, wherein the metal mesh is an aluminum mesh (Shuja, p. 164 – 2. Thermal Analysis) (i.e., wherein the metal mesh is an aluminum mesh).
Regarding claim 5, Navarrete in view of Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres, teaches the latent heat storage composite according to claim 1, wherein the melting point of aluminum is 933 K (i.e., 660°C) (Shuja, p. 166, Table 1), and wherein the melting point of the phase change material is 547°C (Navarrete, p. 10) (i.e., wherein the phase change material has a lower melting point than the metal mesh).
Regarding claim 7, Navarrete in view of Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres, teaches the latent heat storage composite according to claim 1, wherein the metallic mesh enhances the melting of phase change materials (Shuja, Title) and teaches the heat flux varies because of the coverage area of the mesh and decreases with increasing area (Shuja, p. 168, Col. 2, lines 11-14), as the volume increases or decreases with the increase or decrease of area, the heat flux would also vary depending on the change in volume percentage between the mesh and the phase change material.
As Navarrete, in view of Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres, teaches the latent heat storage composite substantially identical to the claimed latent heat storage composite, it is clear that the thermal diffusion would also be controlled depending on the change in volume percentage between the metal mesh and the phase change material.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 8, Navarrete in view of Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres, teaches the latent heat storage composite according to claim 1, wherein the metallic mesh enhances the melting of the phase change materials (Shuja, Title) and the heat flux varies because of the coverage area of the mesh and decreases with increasing area (Shuja, p. 168, Col. 2, lines 11-14), as the volume increases or decreases with the increase or decrease of the area, the heat flux would also vary depending on the volume percentage between the mesh and the phase change material in the latent heat storage composite.
Although there are no disclosures on the volume percentage of the metal mesh being 1 to 20 vol% based on the latent heat storage composite as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the volume of metal mesh in the latent heat storage composite, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve the desired thermal diffusion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant primarily argues:
“Thus, the claimed latent heat storage composite is characterized by the fact that the heat transfer direction can vary depending on the shape of the folded metal mesh, and the thermal conductivity value can also vary depending on the heat transfer direction controlled by the shape of the folded metal mesh.
In contrast, the cited references do not teach or suggest the configurations recited in the amended claims.
…
Accordingly, the cited references do not disclose a configuration that controls the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh, which is a core component of the claimed latent heat storage composite. Furthermore, the technical concepts and effects of the claimed latent heat storage composite could not have been obtained even through a combination of the cited references.
Also, there is no apparent reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references to arrive at the claimed latent heat storage composite.”
Remarks, p. 6 and 8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
While applicant argues the cited references do not disclose “wherein a direction of heat transfer is controlled according to the shape of the folded metal mesh”, as Navarrete, in view of Shuja, Lee, and Strauss, teaches the latent heat storage composite substantially identical to the claimed latent heat storage composite, it is clear that the direction of heat transfer would inherently be controlled according to the shape of the folded metal mesh.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Applicant further argues:
“Navarrete's invention includes a nitrate-based phase change material.
However, Navarrete does not disclose any metal mesh configuration, does not include any configuration for artificially folding the metal mesh into a specific shape, or any configuration for controlling the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh.”
Remarks, p. 6-7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant primarily argues that Navarrete does not expressly teach the claimed configuration for artificially folding the metal mesh into a specific shape, or any configuration for controlling the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh. This argument merely agrees with the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), which admits that Navarrete does not disclose the entire claimed invention. Rather, Shuja, Lee, Strauss, and Cáceres are relied upon to teach claimed elements missing from Navarrete. See item #8-13 above.
Applicant further argues:
“Shuja's invention includes a metal mesh within a phase change material (PCM) to enhance heat transfer performance.
However, the metal mesh disclosed in Shuja is limited to a planar lattice structure
(triangular, square, hexagonal, etc.). Shuja does not disclose any configuration for artificially folding the metal mesh into a specific shape, nor does it include any configuration for controlling the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Shuja does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Shuja is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach a flexible foldable metal mesh and a network of thermally conductive metal oxide structures formed on the metal mesh, in order to enhance the melting of the phase change material (Shuja, p. 163, Col. 2), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Strauss's invention forms metal structures into various shapes, such as honeycombs.
However, the metal structures disclosed in Strauss are primarily intended to secure mechanical strength and surface area, and do not include structures that combine with phase change materials (PCMs) or serve as filler networks to enhance heat transfer performance.
In particular, no structure is mentioned in Strauss's invention that artificially folds a metal mesh into a specific shape, nor structures that control the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh.”
Remarks, p. 7
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Strauss does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Strauss is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach the metal mesh is folded to have a shape created by combining one or more selected from the group consisting of a wave shape and a zigzag shape, in order to have a high surface area to volume ratio with high effective thermal conductivity and absorb impact more smoothly (Strauss, Col. 3, lines 4-8), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Lee's invention discloses a technique for forming a three-dimensional porous metal oxide nanowire network on the surface of a metal substrate.
However, the metal oxide structures disclosed in Lee are primarily applied to electronic materials such as sensors, electrodes, and catalysts, and do not include structures that combine with phase change materials (PCMs) to enhance heat transfer performance.
Furthermore, Lee does not disclose a configuration that artificially folds a metal mesh into a specific shape, or a configuration that controls the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh.”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Lee does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Lee is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach the metal oxide structures are porous copper oxide nanowire structures applied to the metal mesh; and the porous copper oxide nanowire structures are formed in a spiky configuration on the flexible and foldable metal mesh, in order to increase the reactivity of the material (Lee, [0013]), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Applicant further argues:
“Caceres's invention is a technology for storing phase change materials (PCMs) by encapsulating them (EPCMs).
However, the PCM encapsulation structure disclosed by Caceres is limited to enclosing the PCM in a shell and does not include a configuration that includes a metal mesh within the PCM. Specifically, Caceres does not disclose a configuration that artificially folds a metal mesh into a specific shape, or a configuration that controls the direction of heat transfer based on the shape of the folded metal mesh.”
Remarks, p. 8
The examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
It is noted that while Cáceres does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Cáceres is used as a teaching reference, namely to teach the phase change material comprises lithium nitrate (LiNO3) compound phase change materials, in order to decrease the melting point and increase latent heat (Cáceres, p. 5, Paragraph 3), and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Catriona Corallo whose telephone number is (571)272-8957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732